Thanks John, it's good stuff. Exactly what do you think the other things are that we can do that will stop the ever increasing rise in health care costs?

candleman, are you going to tell me you have not seen me post on this before. If not you should start to watch FOX every once and a while. I will tell you some things again that republicans want.

1.) Tort reform (has been constantly blocked by democrats)

2.) Tax subsidies (has been implemented in both bills)

3.) Tax free health savings accounts (has been blocked by democrats)

4.) Allowing people to buy insurance they may only really need or WANT like catastrophic care which is much less cost and needed in most cases for the young. (Law says they cant do this now and it is opposed by democrats to deregulate it so it can be made avalible)

5.) Breaking down the state barriers, so that competition can happen naturally.

Even Wolf blitzer tried to nail David Axelrod down on why he does not allow people to go across state lines to buy insurance, You want to see what happened:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"BLITZER: So why not break down...

AXELROD: ...the market almost completely.

BLITZER: Why not break down the state barriers and let all of these insurance companies compete nationally without having to simply focus in on a state by state basis?

AXELROD: Because we are trying to do this in a way that advances the -- the interests of consumers without creating such disruption that it makes it difficult to...

BLITZER: Why would that be... AXELROD: ...to move forward.

BLITZER: ...disruptive? If Blue Cross and Blue Shield or United Health Care or all of these big insurance companies, they don't have to worry about just working in a state, they could just have the opportunity to compete in all 50 states?

AXELROD: But insurance is regulated at the -- at this time, Wolf...

BLITZER: But you could change that. The president could propose...

AXELROD: ...state by state.

BLITZER: The president could propose a law...

AXELROD: That is not...

BLITZER: ...changing that.

AXELROD: That is not endemic to the kind of reforms that we're proposing or that...

BLITZER: Why not?

AXELROD: ...that...

BLITZER: Why not?

AXELROD: ...we think -- we're proposing a package that we believe will bring that stability and security to people, it will help people get insurance, it will be -- it will lower the costs and that can pass the Congress. And that has to be the test. We're not into a symbolic expedition here. We're trying to bring real relief to hardworking middle class people in this country. We believe the plan that we've outlined will do that."

Now for those that dont get that, it can be explained this way. It does not fit into our BIG GOVERNMENT plan and would actually show there would be no need for a government plan to promote competition and therefore we are against it. There is no other reason they would not have tried that first why do you ask, well because; IT COST US NOTHING TO DO.

candleman, are you going to tell me you have not seen me post on this before. If not you should start to watch FOX every once and a while. I will tell you some things again that republicans want.

1.) Tort reform (has been constantly blocked by democrats)

2.) Tax subsidies (has been implemented in both bills)

3.) Tax free health savings accounts (has been blocked by democrats)

4.) Allowing people to buy insurance they may only really need or WANT like catastrophic care which is much less cost and needed in most cases for the young. (Law says they cant do this now and it is opposed by democrats to deregulate it so it can be made avalible)

5.) Breaking down the state barriers, so that competition can happen naturally.

Even Wolf blitzer tried to nail David Axelrod down on why he does not allow people to go across state lines to buy insurance, You want to see what happened:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"BLITZER: So why not break down...

AXELROD: ...the market almost completely.

BLITZER: Why not break down the state barriers and let all of these insurance companies compete nationally without having to simply focus in on a state by state basis?

AXELROD: Because we are trying to do this in a way that advances the -- the interests of consumers without creating such disruption that it makes it difficult to...

BLITZER: Why would that be... AXELROD: ...to move forward.

BLITZER: ...disruptive? If Blue Cross and Blue Shield or United Health Care or all of these big insurance companies, they don't have to worry about just working in a state, they could just have the opportunity to compete in all 50 states?

AXELROD: But insurance is regulated at the -- at this time, Wolf...

BLITZER: But you could change that. The president could propose...

AXELROD: ...state by state.

BLITZER: The president could propose a law...

AXELROD: That is not...

BLITZER: ...changing that.

AXELROD: That is not endemic to the kind of reforms that we're proposing or that...

BLITZER: Why not?

AXELROD: ...that...

BLITZER: Why not?

AXELROD: ...we think -- we're proposing a package that we believe will bring that stability and security to people, it will help people get insurance, it will be -- it will lower the costs and that can pass the Congress. And that has to be the test. We're not into a symbolic expedition here. We're trying to bring real relief to hardworking middle class people in this country. We believe the plan that we've outlined will do that."

Now for those that dont get that, it can be explained this way. It does not fit into our BIG GOVERNMENT plan and would actually show there would be no need for a government plan to promote competition and therefore we are against it. There is no other reason they would not have tried that first why do you ask, well because; IT COST US NOTHING TO DO.

John, your first five points are very good ones. I think that we'll get there through negotiation. The Tort Reform is going to be a big one to get over. I think about 90% of all elected Congressmembers have Law Degrees. Let's hope they can work that one out. It's going to be important that we don't let bad Doctors and Drug Manufacturers get away with criminal acts of negligence. While at the same time we do limit the amount of monetary damages awarded. I'd like to see jail time for Doctors and Drug Companies that make horrible stupid mistakes with our lives.

John, your first five points are very good ones. I think that we'll get there through negotiation. The Tort Reform is going to be a big one to get over. I think about 90% of all elected Congressmembers have Law Degrees. Let's hope they can work that one out. It's going to be important that we don't let bad Doctors and Drug Manufacturers get away with criminal acts of negligence. While at the same time we do limit the amount of monetary damages awarded. I'd like to see jail time for Doctors and Drug Companies that make horrible stupid mistakes with our lives.

First I will say that the republicans (most of anyway) are not the ones that dont want tort reform they have tried several times only to get pushed back by the democrats. I also agree that you want people to have some kind of recourse there is something that would stop alot of the dumb bullshit law suits and that is make the lawers pay for the ones judges find to be outrages.

Well candleman I hope they do I just dont think they will. The democrats have (and you know this) been taken over by the liberials, ONE clear example is Polosie (congressmen from San Fransico, for god sake) is the head of the democrats in the house.

Now I know what you are thinking that the republicans have been taken over by the conservatives. I disagree I think because they forgot the conservative princibles is why they are out on their asses. Those princibles are:

1.) Small government.

2.) Balence the budget.

3.) Going after our own energy resourses and not tying our own hands on the subject.

4.) Having family values.

The list gos on. I have said many times that when they passed that prescription drug program it was the beginning of the end for them. Lets remember Reagan was a conservative and JFK was not a liberial.

But, I will have to say that the Republican Party lost the election because of the influx of the so called Right Wing Christian Conservative movement. Here is an example.

I supported John McCain for President. I sent him hundreds of dollars over the course of 18 months. Why, you may ask. He's a Veteran and he knows the cost of war. He opposed torture and he opposed a lot of what the Bush Administration supported. And, I liked a lot of his stands on other issues. He's a pretty moderate sort of a Conservative.

And then he went and picked the Governor of Alaska as his running mate. John, I just couldn't support the ticket with her on it because if McCain had died in office, she would have been President. And she represented the scary side of the Christian Conservative Movement in the Republican Party. So, I chose not to vote for anyone for President.

My point is, I think that a lot of moderate thinkers like myself did the same thing, or they switched and voted for President Obama. He's our President now and I will serve him as I would any President. But, I think McCain would have been better.

Ah, John I could carry this thought train on forever, but the Grandson just called and wants to go to McDonalds for lunch, and so here I go. Have a good weekend.

But, I will have to say that the Republican Party lost the election because of the influx of the so called Right Wing Christian Conservative movement. Here is an example.

I supported John McCain for President. I sent him hundreds of dollars over the course of 18 months. Why, you may ask. He's a Veteran and he knows the cost of war. He opposed torture and he opposed a lot of what the Bush Administration supported. And, I liked a lot of his stands on other issues. He's a pretty moderate sort of a Conservative.

And then he went and picked the Governor of Alaska as his running mate. John, I just couldn't support the ticket with her on it because if McCain had died in office, she would have been President. And she represented the scary side of the Christian Conservative Movement in the Republican Party. So, I chose not to vote for anyone for President.

My point is, I think that a lot of moderate thinkers like myself did the same thing, or they switched and voted for President Obama. He's our President now and I will serve him as I would any President. But, I think McCain would have been better.

Ah, John I could carry this thought train on forever, but the Grandson just called and wants to go to McDonalds for lunch, and so here I go. Have a good weekend.

That is fare enough it also shows the MSM did their job for Obama. You see I watched FOX and also saw all the dumb ass gaffs Obama made they were at least equal in stupidity and quantity to Palins (and FOX showed them all) As for Biden there was no comparison that man is a real twit (as a matter of fact FOX was really fare to Biden because they did not even show them all, I got many others from other places.) As for Palin she had a 76% percent aproval rating in Alaska, ask yourself where else has any governor ever had a 76% approval rating. She must have been doing something right and you cant dismiss that. I also saw how radical Obama was. I warned people about him and they did not believe me then, I cannot tell you how many of them have come back and said, boy I should have listened to you. Obama is not the man I thought I was getting when I voted for him.

That is fare enough it also shows the MSM did their job for Obama. You see I watched FOX and also saw all the dumb ass gaffs Obama made they were at least equal in stupidity and quantity to Palins (and FOX showed them all) As for Biden there was no comparison that man is a real twit (as a matter of fact FOX was really fare to Biden because they did not even show them all, I got many others from other places.) As for Palin she had a 76% percent aproval rating in Alaska, ask yourself where else has any governor ever had a 76% approval rating. She must have been doing something right and you cant dismiss that. I also saw how radical Obama was. I warned people about him and they did not believe me then, I cannot tell you how many of them have come back and said, boy I should have listened to you. Obama is not the man I thought I was getting when I voted for him.

Ha! John, you're gonna love this one buddy. I've told you before that I don't watch TV, so I don't get my news that way. But, what I'm laughing about is how far away I must be. I don't know what MSM is....LOL I know you refer to it all the time....so what is it? Thanks.

Ha! John, you're gonna love this one buddy. I've told you before that I don't watch TV, so I don't get my news that way. But, what I'm laughing about is how far away I must be. I don't know what MSM is....LOL I know you refer to it all the time....so what is it? Thanks.

Thats ok candleman, I see you dont read many of relmors post, just kidding relmor.

MSM is "Main Stream Media" things like the New York Times, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC. That is changing though with the ratings FOX is getting. I will have to be careful about using that term beacuse FOX News gets more viewers then most of the rest combined. For instance 7 of the 10 top ratings for cable news goto FOX, FOX programs where 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. They get more viewers then the rest of the cable news combined with a few hundred thousand left over.

Thats ok candleman, I see you dont read many of relmors post, just kidding relmor.

MSM is "Main Stream Media" things like the New York Times, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC. That is changing though with the ratings FOX is getting. I will have to be careful about using that term beacuse FOX News gets more viewers then most of the rest combined. For instance 7 of the 10 top ratings for cable news goto FOX, FOX programs where 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. They get more viewers then the rest of the cable news combined with a few hundred thousand left over.

I'm just glad I've never had enough time in my life to watch TV. There has got to be better things for people to do!